A court has the discretion to allow a party to amend its pleadings, even if the amendment introduces a new defense, as long as the amendment does not change the nature of the case or introduce a new set of facts.

1. In a suit for possession of the disputed land filed by Mohinder Singh and Gurmel Singh respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) on the basis of a registered sale-deed executed in their favour on June 18, 1968, by the husband of the defendant-petitioner, the defence of the petitioner was that the disputed property had been gifted to her on April 13, 1956, that the gift was oral, was accompanied by possession and that the petitioner had been in continuous possession of the land through her son Madan Jit Singh (respondent No. 3 before me) since April, 1956. After the conclusion of the evidence led by the plaintiffs in the affirmative and of the evidence led by the defendant-petitioner and before the recording of the plaintiffs evidence in rebuttal, an application was made by the petitioner in the trial Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend her written statement so as to add an alternative defence to the claim of the plaintiffs about her being not liable to deliver possession to the plaintiffs on the ground that even if she was not able to prove the oral gift, she had become an absolute owner of the property by adverse possession as she had been in continuous possession of the property since April, 1956. By his order, dated November 10, 1971, the learned Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the application of the petitioner by holding that if the amendment was allowed, it would change the nature of the defence and that a new ground of defence could not be permitted to be added by amending the written statement. He held that the new defence sought to be added would be entirely inconsistent with and contradictory to the original plea taken by the petitioner in her defence and would also result in setting up a new case for her. The application was disallowed with the observation that it had been given for delaying the decision of the suit which had been pending for more than three years.

2. Mr. S. P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred me to the judgment of my Lord, the Chief Justice, in Raghvir Prasad V/s. Chet Ram, 1971 Cur LT 612 (Punj). In that case it has been held that under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code of plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. It was observed that even a new case may be allowed to be introduced, and that there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated for it by costs. The learned Chief Justice also observed that the mere fact that the cause of action has been changed is no ground per se for disallowing the amendment. In that case the question related to the amendment of the plaint. The suit had been filed for possession of a house by Raghvir Prasad and his sister Tara Wati on the basis of inheritance. Subsequently, they had applied for leave to amend the plaint so as to claim the same property on the basis of a will. The trial Court refused the amendment. While allowing the revision petition against that order, the High Court held that there was no reason why the plaintiffs in that case should be prevented from having the cause of action sought to be added by the amendment adjudicated upon. The judgment of the learned Chief Justice in the case of Raghvir Prasad (supra) no doubt supports the petitioners claim for amendment for her written statement.

3. Mr. T. S. Mangat has on the other hand pressed into service the judgment of my Lord, the Chief Justice in Gurmukh Singh V/s. Dalip Singh, 73 Pun LR 830=(AIR 1971 Punj 418) on which reliance has also been placed by the trial Court for passing the order under revision. In that case the trial Court had allowed an amendment of the plaint in a suit for pre-emption so as to permit the plaintiff therein to claim a superior right of pre-emption on the ground of his being a co-sharer, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the suit when the only ground on which the right of pre-emption had originally been claimed